The Lions draft ideology needs to change, imo. Instead of jumping around and trading of future or current picks, reaching if you will, for players of marginal value, questionable ability and character concerns. The Lions decision makers should be more conservative, trade back and acquire more picks as opposed to fixating on players they become enamored with and giving multiple or future picks for. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with some movement in the later rounds (5 thru 7). I just don't believe in mortgaging future early round picks (2 thru 4), because this is where your starters often come from.In 2012 we traded back (usually a good move) in the 4th, we got DE Ronnell Lewis (reach) and a 6th round pick. The 49ers got OG Joe Looney (potential starter). Then in the 5th round we traded this years 4th round pick to the Vikes to get Tahir Whitehead in last years 5th. If we wanted him that badly then we should have taken him in the 4th with our own pick.In 2011 we gave Seattle our 3rd, 4th and position in the 5th to get Leshoure in the 2nd. While Leshoure may yet pan out to become a solid NFL back, I still feel it was too much to give up for a team supposedly trying to build thru the draft.These are just a couple of examples of bonehead moves (imo) in recent draft history, and hopefully won't be an every year occurrence.

February 23rd, 2013, 12:28 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 3955Location: Davison Mi

Re: Draft ideology

liontrax wrote:

The Lions draft ideology needs to change, imo. Instead of jumping around and trading of future or current picks, reaching if you will, for players of marginal value, questionable ability and character concerns. The Lions decision makers should be more conservative, trade back and acquire more picks as opposed to fixating on players they become enamored with and giving multiple or future picks for. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with some movement in the later rounds (5 thru 7). I just don't believe in mortgaging future early round picks (2 thru 4), because this is where your starters often come from.In 2012 we traded back (usually a good move) in the 4th, we got DE Ronnell Lewis (reach) and a 6th round pick. The 49ers got OG Joe Looney (potential starter). Then in the 5th round we traded this years 4th round pick to the Vikes to get Tahir Whitehead in last years 5th. If we wanted him that badly then we should have taken him in the 4th with our own pick.In 2011 we gave Seattle our 3rd, 4th and position in the 5th to get Leshoure in the 2nd. While Leshoure may yet pan out to become a solid NFL back, I still feel it was too much to give up for a team supposedly trying to build thru the draft.These are just a couple of examples of bonehead moves (imo) in recent draft history, and hopefully won't be an every year occurrence.

I think we need to change how we address free agency to be honest. I am fine with best tallent available (so long as we stop with the "risk taking" like we have been doing, as long as we start addressing team needs with QUALITY free agents to fill holes, something we have not been doing hardly at all. the DB's we have scooped up in free agency have been a joke and that NEEDS to stop!

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

February 23rd, 2013, 1:23 pm

kdsberman

Team MVP

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pmPosts: 3419Location: Saginaw, MI

Re: Draft ideology

regularjoe12 wrote:

liontrax wrote:

The Lions draft ideology needs to change, imo. Instead of jumping around and trading of future or current picks, reaching if you will, for players of marginal value, questionable ability and character concerns. The Lions decision makers should be more conservative, trade back and acquire more picks as opposed to fixating on players they become enamored with and giving multiple or future picks for. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with some movement in the later rounds (5 thru 7). I just don't believe in mortgaging future early round picks (2 thru 4), because this is where your starters often come from.In 2012 we traded back (usually a good move) in the 4th, we got DE Ronnell Lewis (reach) and a 6th round pick. The 49ers got OG Joe Looney (potential starter). Then in the 5th round we traded this years 4th round pick to the Vikes to get Tahir Whitehead in last years 5th. If we wanted him that badly then we should have taken him in the 4th with our own pick.In 2011 we gave Seattle our 3rd, 4th and position in the 5th to get Leshoure in the 2nd. While Leshoure may yet pan out to become a solid NFL back, I still feel it was too much to give up for a team supposedly trying to build thru the draft.These are just a couple of examples of bonehead moves (imo) in recent draft history, and hopefully won't be an every year occurrence.

I think we need to change how we address free agency to be honest. I am fine with best tallent available (so long as we stop with the "risk taking" like we have been doing, as long as we start addressing team needs with QUALITY free agents to fill holes, something we have not been doing hardly at all. the DB's we have scooped up in free agency have been a joke and that NEEDS to stop!

If the LIons truly believe in best player available the would sit back and take that player each time their turn came around instead they are constantly trading away picks current and future to try to obtain some player that leave you scratching your head. Very rarely have they ever traded down and tried to accumulate more picks.

My opinion where Mayhew has failed! When you have say the 32 overall draft pick sometimes taking the #32 player on the board is not the thing to do.

WHAT?

Let me explain not all positions are created equal if you want to draft a DE at #32 and you rated a DE at #32 more than likely he won't be there because there is a premium on DE in the draft and he is likely long gone. So you have to account for this and sometimes reach further down you board to get certain positions. I think this very true when it comes to the defensive side of the ball especially on the defensive line and cornerback.

So while Mayhew is drafting wide receivers he is missing out defensive players because they are never going to fall on drat day they are always going to go early and you have to be willing to draft those players early.

I feel if a player has second round grade you can take that player anywhere in the second round you still don't go reaching for a 3 round talent in the second.

_________________The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

March 30th, 2013, 10:04 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Draft ideology

Leo wrote:

If the LIons truly believe in best player available the would sit back and take that player each time their turn came around instead they are constantly trading away picks current and future to try to obtain some player that leave you scratching your head. Very rarely have they ever traded down and tried to accumulate more picks.

My opinion where Mayhew has failed! When you have say the 32 overall draft pick sometimes taking the #32 player on the board is not the thing to do.

WHAT?

Let me explain not all positions are created equal if you want to draft a DE at #32 and you rated a DE at #32 more than likely he won't be there because there is a premium on DE in the draft and he is likely long gone. So you have to account for this and sometimes reach further down you board to get certain positions. I think this very true when it comes to the defensive side of the ball especially on the defensive line and cornerback.

So while Mayhew is drafting wide receivers he is missing out defensive players because they are never going to fall on drat day they are always going to go early and you have to be willing to draft those players early.

I feel if a player has second round grade you can take that player anywhere in the second round you still don't go reaching for a 3 round talent in the second.

hunh?

March 30th, 2013, 10:40 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10019Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Draft ideology

Here's my take.....

You don't have to draft choirboys, but take personal history a little bit more serious.

You don't have to draft players invulnerable to injury, but don't avoid the obvious issues with injuries either.

Stop trying to plug holes. Build the roster, both through the draft and in free agency. And can be done this way. Other teams have.

Don't be afraid to miss out on a player by trading back. Too often it seems the Lions won't move back, but then reach for a player in the middle rounds.

The Lions need to look at more than just players in the draft. They also need to look at the entire scape of the draft to determine where the value lies. I don't think they do this, at all. I don't think they look at the various positions in the draft and see where the value lies for each position and create a strategy based on that.

The one thing I HATE most is when people comment about not taking a player in the first round because X amount of players at that position have already been chosen. 'Why take the third best DE when you can take the best CB'...or whatever. A player with talent is a player with talent. If the first four guys off the board this year were defensive ends, why should that keep the Lions from taking a defensive end? It shouldn't. That best rated CB or OT or whatever isn't a GUARANTEE. That player is JUST as likely to be a bust as that fifth rated DE. And the fact is, simply because they take that DE at number five, doesn't necessarily mean the four DEs that went ahead of him will turn out to be better NFL players. How many QBs went ahead of Tom Brady in the draft? Darren Sproles was taken 15th at his position. Marquis Colston was the 32nd receiver taken the year the Saints landed gold with him.

If the player is worth the pick, he's worth the pick, regardless of how many at his position went before him.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

April 2nd, 2013, 12:11 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2320

Re: Draft ideology

M2, You can look at the "Don't take the #X Player at Position Y" in the opposite light also, which is how I perceive that comment.

Many GMs see a Run begin on a position of Need, (IE DE) and so they reach for the 4th/5th/6th option sometimes taking them a full round too high because they are worried "All the good 1s will run out before our next pick", so they get caught up and lose value.

I Fully Agree that if the first 4 Picks were all OTs, but at 5 there was still an OT WORTH the #5 pick, you don't worry about the "Run" and take him. Its just that often those taken at the end of runs are a reach.

April 2nd, 2013, 12:17 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10019Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Draft ideology

DJ-B wrote:

M2, You can look at the "Don't take the #X Player at Position Y" in the opposite light also, which is how I perceive that comment.

Many GMs see a Run begin on a position of Need, (IE DE) and so they reach for the 4th/5th/6th option sometimes taking them a full round too high because they are worried "All the good 1s will run out before our next pick", so they get caught up and lose value.

I Fully Agree that if the first 4 Picks were all OTs, but at 5 there was still an OT WORTH the #5 pick, you don't worry about the "Run" and take him. Its just that often those taken at the end of runs are a reach.

DJ-B, I understand what you're saying, but it's been many a time I've read someone post a comment that criticizes a pick based on that player being the third or fourth of that position off the board in favor of a different player because that guy would be the first or second of his position off the board. It doesn't speak of overall talent levels of the player, it's only about their ranking at their individual positions. It's absolute stupidity.

If a GM gets nervous and reaches, then they aren't doing their job. There's no doubt what you are stating happens. I look at the draft two years ago with the quarterbacks and the picks to get one. Locker at 8, Gabbert at 10, Ponder at 12?? There's no doubt in my mind the Vikings got scared and did what something that they didn't want to with that pick but felt forced to.

It's why good teams let the drafts come to them. They don't reach, and they don't get scared there won't be any more of a certain position when their pick comes. There's always more than one position on the team that has needs to fill. If they feel they are only one or two players away, then they'll move up to secure the PLAYER they want.

The draft is a tightrope of balancing needs versus value. Sometimes you forego the more outstanding need to get better value. Other times you give up value to secure a player you feel you need.

Since the Lions haven't been one or two players away from securing a playoff roster, I have consistently been in favor of them trading back when they have a top ten pick. This year is no different. If they decide to stand pat at number 5 and take Milliner, Fisher or Joeckel, fine. But if any one of those three is available when the Lions are on the clock, Mayhew would be a damn fool not to seriously consider trade offers from other teams and try to extract as much as they can. The one thing that would cause me to say otherwise is that I feel the dropoff in talent at OT from the top three to the next available talent is significant. Other than that, trading back should be their top priority.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

April 3rd, 2013, 9:07 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2320

Re: Draft ideology

Fully agree with everything you said, and ive noticed the same comments in the past.

I also agree about trading back unless its for the OT. I know its just a game but the first-pick.com thing constantly has the Rams offering 16+22+2nd/3rd rounder for 5, and while dropping to 16 would suck, in that 16-22 range theres going to be a lot of good players and tough to pass up 2 1sts and 2 2nds as opposed to 1 of each when we have so many holes.

April 4th, 2013, 3:14 am

liontrax

3rd Round Selection

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 2:11 pmPosts: 1112Location: Wolverine, Mi.

Re: Draft ideology

m2karateman wrote:

DJ-B wrote:

M2, You can look at the "Don't take the #X Player at Position Y" in the opposite light also, which is how I perceive that comment.

Many GMs see a Run begin on a position of Need, (IE DE) and so they reach for the 4th/5th/6th option sometimes taking them a full round too high because they are worried "All the good 1s will run out before our next pick", so they get caught up and lose value.

I Fully Agree that if the first 4 Picks were all OTs, but at 5 there was still an OT WORTH the #5 pick, you don't worry about the "Run" and take him. Its just that often those taken at the end of runs are a reach.

DJ-B, I understand what you're saying, but it's been many a time I've read someone post a comment that criticizes a pick based on that player being the third or fourth of that position off the board in favor of a different player because that guy would be the first or second of his position off the board. It doesn't speak of overall talent levels of the player, it's only about their ranking at their individual positions. It's absolute stupidity.

If a GM gets nervous and reaches, then they aren't doing their job. There's no doubt what you are stating happens. I look at the draft two years ago with the quarterbacks and the picks to get one. Locker at 8, Gabbert at 10, Ponder at 12?? There's no doubt in my mind the Vikings got scared and did what something that they didn't want to with that pick but felt forced to.

It's why good teams let the drafts come to them. They don't reach, and they don't get scared there won't be any more of a certain position when their pick comes. There's always more than one position on the team that has needs to fill. If they feel they are only one or two players away, then they'll move up to secure the PLAYER they want.

The draft is a tightrope of balancing needs versus value. Sometimes you forego the more outstanding need to get better value. Other times you give up value to secure a player you feel you need.

Since the Lions haven't been one or two players away from securing a playoff roster, I have consistently been in favor of them trading back when they have a top ten pick. This year is no different. If they decide to stand pat at number 5 and take Milliner, Fisher or Joeckel, fine. But if any one of those three is available when the Lions are on the clock, Mayhew would be a damn fool not to seriously consider trade offers from other teams and try to extract as much as they can. The one thing that would cause me to say otherwise is that I feel the dropoff in talent at OT from the top three to the next available talent is significant. Other than that, trading back should be their top priority.

Great post! Absolutely agree! As much as I would like having Joeckel or Fisher, trading back for more picks best serves the needs of the team.